4.2 Article

β-Endorphin inhibits phagocytic activity of lizard splenic phagocytes through μ receptor-coupled adenylate cyclase-protein kinase A signaling pathway

期刊

GENERAL AND COMPARATIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 171, 期 3, 页码 301-308

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2011.02.008

关键词

beta-Endorphin; Phagocytes; Opioid receptor; AC-cAMP-PKA; Reptiles

资金

  1. University Grants Commission, New Delhi, India
  2. Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The receptor-coupled intracellular signaling mechanism of endogenous opioid peptide beta-endorphin (beta-end) is explored for the first time in ectothermic vertebrates using wall lizard as a model. beta-End inhibited the percentage phagocytosis and phagocytic index of lizard splenic phagocytes in a dose-dependent manner. The inhibitory effect of beta-end on phagocytosis was completely antagonized by non-selective opioid receptor antagonist naltrexone and also by selective mu-receptor antagonist CTAP. However, selective antagonists for other opioid receptors like NTI for delta-receptor and NorBNI for kappa-receptor did not alter the effect of beta-end on phagocytosis. This suggests that beta-end mediated its inhibitory effect on phagocytic activity of splenic phagocytes exclusively through mu opioid receptors. The mu opioid receptor-coupled downstream signaling cascade was subsequently explored using inhibitors of adenylate cyclase (SQ 22536) and protein kinase A (H-89). Both SQ 22536 and H-89 abolished the inhibitory effect of beta-end on phagocytosis in a concentration-related manner. Implication of cAMP as second messenger was corroborated by cAMP assay where an increase in intracellular cAMP level was observed in response to beta-end treatment. It can be concluded that beta-end downregulated the phagocytic activity of lizard splenic phagocytes through mu opioid receptor-coupled adenylate cyclase-cAMP-protein kinase A pathway. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据